I think that the journos that pump out that crap are stressed to meet a deadline and so they write up any sensationalist garbage.They [or most], could care less about accuracy, logic, or scientific facts.

Sadly, the job of a modern journalist is getting mouse clicks. They are almost entirely graded on how many hits their stories receive. This is not my theory, this is straight out of the mouth of a rare breed, an honest journalist. Reporting that there is not a crisis, is a career ender.

It is like playing a game of dice with a fair pair of dice, but where both sides believe the dice are loaded against them. So each result that is rolled bolsters the theory that dice are loaded in one group or the other.

Alternating flood and drought are also the climatic norm in much of California (central valley, south coastal areas, Mojave Desert, Owens Valley, and many parts of the Sierra Nevada – pretty much the entire state, except the northwest rain forest)

California. If it’s not too dry and having wild fires then it’s too wet and houses are sliding off the sides of the hills. And if neither of those things are happening then there is always the chance of an earthquake. Never a dull moment.

Too hot during a day(cause of no clouds)too cold during night(“” ” ” ” )Rain is rare,but when it rains,then hard.The earth gets scorched and hardened.Water can not enter the ground=Flood(same happens with urbanisation.The bigger a city getsthe more ground is sealed.Water can not enter the ground.Such a thing may not happen in higher regions as boulder,as long as a region is not inside a high plateau valley water will flow fast away)

As example:The driest place on earth:(extremly dry long time before the words climate & change even existed.The Atacama desert:Annual precipitation 2% of Death Valley precipitation.= 5000% more rain in super dry Death Valley.

Still Floods do happen there on a regular basis(and the climate is very very constant there due to certain specific circumstances).

Will there be less water then before?Whereever many people live=yes.

Eventually you ran out of groundwater,especially in Regions where many people live because they need lot of waterEither you find ways to refill aquafiers during floods or you”ll have now ground water in a few decades.

Has there been dry periods before global warming scare?Yes-I remember watching an old skateboard documentary about how vertical skateboarding was invented.These guys used empty swimming pools to skate.And there have been many many empty swimming pools at that time in California because of “not enough water”((the movie was from the late 70ies= global cooling scare)).

Instead of wasting billions on some pricks who are more wrong with their predictions than a 5 year old fortune teller we should use this money for desalination plants,sewage treatment plants andinto inventing batteries which can store 3* more energy but cost just half(that”s what you need to make them go mainstrean).

I’m not “pretending” about anything. Cycles of drought and flood are common for both Australia and Texas and have been for millennia. The pretenders are those that claim that periods of flooding or drought in those places now is somehow caused by something different from those in the past. And are doing so without a speck of science to back their claims.

Sure it does. That depends on the “scientific standard” you are using. If you are going to predict the dry future climate of Texas on a decades worth of data, then an event like Harvey can be used to call into question the validity of that prediction.

The MSM is full of stories this week that Harvey is indicative of Global Warming, and using the same “scientific standard” one can easily say Harvey casts doubt on the drought future of Texas study.

If one side is going to use faulty logic and reasoning as the scientific gold standard to support public policy, the other side would be stupid not to use the same scientific standard to demonstrate the opposite. This is a matter of swaying the opinion of an unscientific populace, it is not science. Taken to the extreme, each side can use the daily weather to bolster it’s own arguments one way or the other – but it is not science.

To get the truth (assuming there is enough data to do so) the problem of the scientific standard has to be addressed.

Griff – Even though I have a hard time agreeing with you I appreciate you showing up on this site. We need to hear from the other side and you do a good job, and are respectful, more than some of the lugs here. Please post more often, it get’s us thinking. Remember, science is never settled, there is no consensus in science, and birds of different feathers often migrate together.

When I see an event like Harvey, with all those desperate refugees (and there’s another set of less reported floods in India/Nepal) and I know that the warnings that this would happen have been out there and ignored, I tend to lose my grip on science for a moment.

“While Houston, Texas, is already regularly home to some of the worst flooding events that occur within the US, the reality is that, thanks to rising seas, increasingly extreme rainstorms, and increasingly powerful hurricanes, such events will actually become considerably worse over the coming decades.”

It is the same weather Texas has had in the past. A Major hurricane struck Texas as has happened many times in the past during hurricane season. The hurricane stalled and looped over Houston. Hurricanes have stalled and looped many times in the past. Because hurricanes carry massive rains with them, Houston was inundated and has severe flooding. Houston, lying in a drainage basin on the coast has had severe floods in the past.

WEATHER is not CLIMATE. And there is absolutely no science that has established that there is any connection between the incidence or severity of hurricanes and so called “climate change”. Quit spreading hearsay bull hocky. There is no evidence to support what your saying now just as there was no science to support it when they were saying the same things after Katrina in 2005.

His conclusion:“The development of Harvey and the pattern that caused it to stall were all on the table well beforehand for those who looked. However, if you did not look, or you were unaware of previous metrics of strength, then you would fall for the arguments that this is part of climate change. All those other storms continued moving, so they went inland and died as they got further away from the ocean source. Because either a warmer than normal or normal pattern steered them that way. Harvey stalled because of a pattern that has happened before, was on the charts, and involved the opposite of arguments that would lead to a warming conclusion. The stalling of the storm was key since lesser storms that have stalled in Texas history have dumped almost as much, the most notable Tropical Storm Amelia in 1978, a mere tropical storm that dumped 48 inches of rain. Naturally, a stronger stalled storm would dump more, but what stalled the storm was not a result of climate change but a well-known, well-forecasted pattern. So if the 1935 Labor Day hurricane — the most powerful storm to be recorded hitting the US, a storm that went from a tropical storm to a Cat 5 in 36 hours — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?If the 1938 storm comes back — a storm that took down two billion board feet of trees in New England, had major river floods in western New England, flooded Providence with 13 feet of water in a storm surge, and had a wind gust of 186 mph at blue hill — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?If Donna of 1960 showed up again — with hurricane force winds in every state from Florida to Maine, never recorded before or since in U.S. history — why would it be climate change now, but not then?I can go on and on with countless storms.The answer: It is nature doing what nature does. And coming out after the storm and claiming it’s something else reveals either ignorance of the past or, if you do know, an agenda based on deception. If I saw the people commenting on this now making a preseason forecast, or even five days before when the obsession was the eclipse, then perhaps I would be more open to those ideas. But telling people why after the what is Monday morning agenda-based quarterbacking. Perhaps that is the lesson of Harvey.”